JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - This revision is directed against the order passed by the Munsif, First Court, Cuttack refusing to stay the proceedings of Execution Case No. 135 of 1984. 2. The facts necessary for decision of the civil revision may be stated in brief. One Zahirunissa was the owner of the suit house situate in Cut tack town. Opposite party No. 1 claiming to be the sister and next heir of Zahirunissa filed House Rent Control Case No. 50 of 1982 before the House Rent Controller, Cuttack for eviction of the Petitioner and two others named Kadan Khan and Karim Khan. The House Rent Controller, by order dated 6-3-1984 passed an order of eviction. Against the said order, the Petitioner preferreed House Rent Control Appeal No. 15 of 1984 and the two others, namely Kadan Khan and Karim Khan preferred House Rent Control Appeal No. 24 of 1984 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack. Both the appeals were dismissed and the order of eviction was upheld. The Petitioner challenged the aforesaid orders in a writ petition bearing O.J.C. No. 308 of 1985 in the High Court, but subsequently withdrew the same. Opposite party No. 1 filed Execution Case No. 135 of 1984 against the Petitioner and the two others for execution of the eviction order on 11-5-1984. During pendency of the Execution case, the Petitioner instituted Title Suit No. 7 of 1985 in the Court of the Munsif, First Court, Cut tack praying for a declaration that opposite party No. 1 was not the sister of Zahirunissa and had no title or interest in respect of the suit house and for permanent injunction restraining her and others from interfering with his peaceful possession thereof. In the suit, he claimed that he was the son of Zahirunissa's brother groomed as her foster-son and was the next heir, whereas opposite party No. 1 was an imposter. On 25-6-1973, a year before her death Zahirunissa had executed a will in his favour in respect of the suit house. He had instituted O.S. No. 3/26 of 1983 in the court of the District Judge, Cut tack praying for grant of letters of administration in his favour which is sub judice in the court of the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Cuttack. He had instituted O.S. No. 3/26 of 1983 in the court of the District Judge, Cut tack praying for grant of letters of administration in his favour which is sub judice in the court of the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Cuttack. In view of the pendency of O.S. No. 3/26 of 1983 and pendency of Title Suit No. 109 of 1985 in which the title and possession of the Petitioner shall be finally adjudicated and because of the in disputed position that he is in possession of the suit house, the Petitioner 'filed a petition under Order 21, Rule 29 of the CPC ('Code' for short) for stay of Execution Case No. 135 of 19844 till the disposal of the suits. Opposite party No. 1 in her counter, apart for denying the relationship of the Petitioner with Zahirunissa, averred that she should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of the eviction order passed in her favour. 3. The learned Munsif, First Court, Cuttack, held that the Petitioner has all along been taking adjournments in O.S. No. 3/26 of 1983 although the suit is ripe for hearing. He filed Title Suit No. 109 of 1985 only after all his attempts to set the eviction order at naught had failed. Therefore, the actions of the Petitioner lack bona fides on account of which court's judicial discretion under Order 21, Rule 29 of the Code cannot be exercised in his favour by passing an order of stay of execution of the order of eviction. He further held that opposite party No. 1 should not be deprived of enjoying the fruits of the eviction order. Accordingly, he refused to grant stay of the execution case. 4. The following points arise for consideration: (i) Whether the Petitioner Jacked bona fides on account of which judicial discretion conferred on the court by Order 21, Rule 29 of the Code should not be exercised in his favour by passing an order of stay of the execution case and (2) Whether the opposite party No. 1 should not be deprived to enjoy the fruits of the order of eviction passed in her favour. 5. According to the averments made in the plaint in Title Suit No. 109 of 1985, Zahirunissa executed a will in favour of the Petitioner on 25-6-1973 a year before she died. The Petitioner instituted O.S. No. 3/26 of 1983 praying for letters of administration. 5. According to the averments made in the plaint in Title Suit No. 109 of 1985, Zahirunissa executed a will in favour of the Petitioner on 25-6-1973 a year before she died. The Petitioner instituted O.S. No. 3/26 of 1983 praying for letters of administration. The suit could have been instituted soon after Zahirunissa's death. But it was not done until 'opposite party No. 1 brought House Rent Control Case No. 50 of 1982 against the Petitioner. The suit became ready for hearing in the court of the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Cuttack on transfer on 22-8-1983. The certified copy of the order-sheet upto 17-6-1985 shows that almost on each date of hearing, the Petitioner applied for adjournment although opposite party No. 1 was ready for hearing. House Rent Control Case No. 50 of 1982 was disposed of on 6-3-1984. House Rent Control Appeal No. 15 of 1984 and 24 of 1984 were disposed of on 18-1-1985. The orders were challenged in O.J.C. No. 308 of 1985 which was withdrawn. Thereafter Title Suit No. 109 of 1985 was instituted in the court of the First Munsif, Cuttack with the averments and prayers already referred to above. If as a matter of fact, the Petitioner was anxious to enforce his legal rights, he ought not to have waited as late as the middle of 1985. The intention of the Petitioner, therefore, clearly appears to frustrate the attempt of opposite party No. 1 to execute the order or eviction. The finding of the court below as to lack of bona fides on the part of the Petitioner, therefore, appears to be not without substance. 6. According to Section 14 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, all orders passed by the Controller shall subject to the decision, it any, made in an appea1 be final and shall not be called in question in my Court of 1aw. According to this provision, the order of eviction of the Petitioner passed in House Rent Control Case No. 50 of 1982 which was upheld in appeal has become final. According to this provision, the order of eviction of the Petitioner passed in House Rent Control Case No. 50 of 1982 which was upheld in appeal has become final. According to Section 15 of the aforesaid Act, the order of the Controller made u/s 7 directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the house, shall be deemed to be a decree and shall be executable as such in the Court of the Munsif within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the house is situate. According to this provision, the order of the (sic) Rent Controller; Cuttack in House Rent Control Case No. 50 of 1982 was put into execution in Execution Case No. 135 of 1984. In Judhistir Jena Vs. Surendra Mohanty and Another while dealing with scope and ambit of Order 21, Rule 29 of the Code it was held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in what cases stay would be granted or refused. But, a rigorous test is to be applied and in most of the cases prayer for stay is bound to be refused. It was further held that when a decree has been obtained by a party he should not be deprived of the fruits of that decree except for good reasons. Until that decree is set aside, it stands good an d it should not be lightly dealt with on the off-chance that an other suit to set aside the decree might succeed. In Quasi Taufiqur Rahman v. Mst. Nurbanu Bibi AIR 1976 Gau 39 , it was held that while exercising the discretion conferred under Rule 29 of Order 21, the Court should duly consider that a party who has obtained a lawful decree is not deprived of the fruits of that decree except for good and cogent reasons. So long as the decree is not set aside by a competent court it stands good and effective and it should not be lightly dealt with so as to deprive the holder of the lawful decree of its fruits. A party should not be deprived of the fruits of the decree obtained by him from a competent court merely because a suit has subsequently been filed for setting aside that decree. A party should not be deprived of the fruits of the decree obtained by him from a competent court merely because a suit has subsequently been filed for setting aside that decree. A decree passed by a competent court should be allowed to be executed and unless a strong case is made out on cogent grounds no stay should be granted. I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed above. 7. Opposite party No. 1 obtained the order of eviction having the force of a decree which is under execution in the appropriate court. On the off-chance that the Petitioner will succeed in the suits which were instituted by him, she cannot be deprived of enjoying the fruits of the order of eviction obtained by her. If the Petitioner will become successful in the suits and it will be ultimately found that he has right, title and interest in respect of the suit house and opposite party No. 1 has none, in that case, he will undoubtedly recover possession of the same. While considering a petition for stay under Order 21, Rule 29 of the Code the court cannot shut its eyes to the aforesaid facts and mechanically pass an order of stay of execution. Viewed in the light of the above, the learned Munsif. First Court. Cuttack was justified in refusing to stay the execution of the order of eviction. The impugned order cannot therefore be interfered with in revision. Before parting with the case, I wish to make it clear that no observation made in this judgment shall prejudicially affect the decision of the suits referred to above. 8. For the aforesaid reasons the Civil Revision is dismissed. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 75/-. Final Result : Dismissed